Why this matters

EPSO (the European Personnel Selection Office) is the gateway to nearly every permanent and contract job in the European Commission, Parliament, Council, Court of Justice, External Action Service, agencies and other EU bodies. Since 2023 EPSO has run almost all reasoning and pre-selection tests as remote, proctored online tests — first on TestWe, and from 2026 on TAO (Open Assessment Technologies) with Proctorio as the proctoring layer, plus Prometric Ireland as a secondary "cascade" provider.

The promise of remote testing was access and scale. The reality, documented by the European Ombudsman, the European Parliament, EU staff unions and thousands of candidates, has been a sustained crisis: cancelled competitions, mandatory retests, frozen screens, unreachable helpdesks, and disputes about whether a candidate's failure was their own — or the platform's. The official EPSO page tells candidates what hardware they need and what is forbidden on their desk. It does not tell them what tends to go wrong, how often, or what to do when it does.

This guide fills that gap. It is written for two audiences at once: candidates preparing for EPSO and candidates contesting an EPSO outcome.

What the official EPSO testing page actually says

The page at eu-careers.europa.eu/en/what-know-about-testing covers only the online testing setup — not the substantive test format, scoring or appeals. It is essentially a technical prerequisite checklist. Its key elements:

Two platforms in parallel

EPSO currently runs tests on two stacks: TAO by Open Assessment Technologies (OAT), which uses the Proctorio browser extension for remote proctoring, and TestWe, a desktop testing application. Different competitions use different platforms; candidates are told which one when they receive their invitation.

TAO/Proctorio technical requirements

Administrator rights on the computer (which, as EPSO acknowledges, is "usually not possible on corporate computers"); Windows 10+, macOS 10.15+, Ubuntu 18.04+, or Chrome 58+; Chrome or Edge browser; desktop or laptop less than 10 years old; at least 2 GB free RAM; 25 MB free disk; an Intel Pentium, Apple M1 or ARM processor; a camera and microphone; a stable wired or Wi-Fi connection; antivirus and firewall disabled; no active VPN; mobile devices and tablets are not supported.

TestWe technical requirements

Windows 10 or macOS 10.15 minimum; Chrome, Edge, Brave or Opera; 4 GB RAM minimum, 8 GB recommended; 2 GB free disk; camera; disabled antivirus/firewall; no VPN. Windows 10 S, Windows on ARM and virtual machines are explicitly listed as incompatible. Candidates are told to uninstall and reinstall any previous TestWe install before each session.

Clean Desk Policy

Allowed: laptop with charger, single screen, mouse, keyboard, ID document, mousepad, tissues, an unlabelled drink. Prohibited: phones, docking stations, other people or pets in the room, headphones or earbuds, writing materials, books or notes.

On-the-day rules

A valid photo ID with name on the same side; complete a technical "prerequisite check" before the deadline; stay in camera view at all times; do not speak or read aloud; ensure a quiet, well-lit, uninterrupted room; follow on-screen instructions; read the Privacy Statement.

What is not on this page, but matters just as much: what the tests look like, where you find practice materials, what to do when the platform fails on test day, and what your rights are afterwards.

What EPSO actually tests

The EPSO 2026 cycle (starting with the AD5 generalist competition EPSO/AD/427/26) confirms a leaner, faster-paced reasoning battery than candidates older than a few years remember.

Verbal reasoning

20 questions in 35 minutes. You read a short passage and judge whether a statement is True, False or Cannot Say based only on the passage. The trap is consistent: candidates' own knowledge or common sense contradicts what the passage technically supports.

Numerical and abstract reasoning

Combined into a single 30-minute, 20-question block in AD5 2026, scored as a pass/fail gate. Numerical items give you data in tables, charts or graphs and ask for percentages, ratios, growth rates or simple weighted averages. Abstract items show sequences of shapes and ask which option continues the pattern. Calculator availability and on-screen tooling have varied between sessions and platforms (see below).

Situational Judgement Test (SJT)

Officially dropped from most current EPSO open competitions but still used in some institutional and agency procedures. Where used, it presents short workplace scenarios with four candidate actions; you rank the most and least effective.

EU knowledge MCQ

Used in some profiles (translators, lawyer-linguists, specialists, internal competitions). Drawn from EU history, institutions, treaties and current policy themes.

Field/case study tests

For AST and AD specialist profiles. A briefing dossier, a problem, a written deliverable produced in a fixed window (often 90 minutes).

Assessment Centre

For shortlisted candidates: oral presentation (10 minutes preparation, 10 minutes delivery + Q&A), structured competency-based interview, group exercise or in-tray (e-tray), all mapped onto EPSO's eight competencies: Analysis & Problem Solving, Communicating, Delivering Quality and Results, Learning and Development, Prioritising and Organising, Resilience, Working with Others, and Leadership.

The competency framework, published by EPSO, was built from a survey of around 1,500 EU officials and is the explicit grading rubric assessors use. Reading it before the Assessment Centre is among the highest-leverage things a candidate can do.

Preparation resources, ranked by what they actually offer

EPSO publishes sample tests only, capped at roughly 10 questions per category, in all 24 official languages. They are useful for format familiarity but inadequate for serious preparation, and EPSO does not endorse any external provider.

Official sources

EPSO sample tests on eu-careers.europa.eu. The Notice of Competition (always read first — it is the contract between you and EPSO and governs all complaint deadlines). The EPSO Competency Framework PDF. EPSO's "Ask Epsy" AI assistant for FAQs.

Free third-party

EPSOprep offers around 100 free questions across verbal, numerical and abstract reasoning. JobTestPrep has free sample numerical, verbal, abstract and SJT items with explanations. Eurostat is unofficial but high-value: EPSO numerical items repeatedly mirror the kind of tables and figures Eurostat publishes (population, trade, employment, GDP).

Paid platforms

EU Training is the dominant commercial provider — a database advertised at 35,000+ EPSO-style questions in 24 languages, plus the regularly updated Ultimate EU Test Book, widely cited by passed candidates. ORSEU Concours sells books, online tests and live/distance courses, with a strong reputation for its methodological books on each reasoning type and on case studies, SJT and the interview. EPSOprep (premium tier), Prepari.eu, and JobTestPrep are credible smaller alternatives. Euphorum offers a structured EU careers programme.

Books, used as workbooks rather than as reading

The Ultimate EU Test Book; ORSEU's series on verbal/numerical/abstract reasoning, SJT, case study and EPSO interviews.

Community

The EU Careers Student Ambassadors network, the EU Training and EPSOprep blogs (both run multiple posts per month on changes to the format), the Reddit communities r/EUCareers and r/EUjobs, and the EU staff union U4U's EPSO updates page (u4unity.eu/en/institutions/epso), which often surfaces problems before EPSO publicly acknowledges them.

A defensible 12-week plan for a generalist AD5 candidate: weeks 1–2 diagnostic baseline on a paid platform; weeks 3–8 daily mixed-format drilling under timed conditions, with a notebook tracking the types of items missed; weeks 9–10 full timed mocks at the same time of day as the scheduled test; weeks 11–12 taper, rest, ID and equipment check, prerequisite check with the test provider.

The technical risk profile — what actually goes wrong

This is the part of EPSO testing that the official page does not address and that has dominated the system's reputation since 2023.

Cancelled and rerun competitions

Following a wave of complaints about remote testing, EPSO/AST/154/22 (AST3) was cancelled outright. EPSO paused open competitions in late 2023 "to re-evaluate automated surveillance" after sustained complaints about Proctorio-style proctoring and proceeded to reopen with TestWe. The AD5 Translators competition (EPSO/AD/414-421/24) suffered a contractor-side defect during the 6 March 2025 MCQ tests that allowed candidates to submit more than one answer despite instructions to the contrary; EPSO, in agreement with the Selection Boards, retested all candidates present that day on 14 May 2025, including the Reasoning, L1 and L3 tests. Replacement tests for Economists and the Crisis & Migration competitions ran nearly five months after the original sessions. In late 2025 the European Parliament passed a formal resolution (2025/2880(RSP)) condemning "repeated technical, organisational and procedural shortcomings", citing candidates suffering "substantial mental distress" and a "loss of trust" in the recruitment process.

Platform-specific failures candidates have documented

Lag between segments long enough that some sessions auto-closed (10–15 minutes blocked between numerical and abstract reasoning in the AD7 Building Management 27 January 2026 sitting). "Page Not Found" errors on returning from a forced reboot, with the system marking the session "completed" before the candidate could resume. On-screen calculators and scratchpads sized to fill the screen, obscuring the question text, and not minimisable. Keyboards unresponsive inside the test app, forcing candidates to click numbers on the calculator or draw notes with the mouse. An absent or inconsistent on-screen timer. Disappearing or unavailable note-taking tools. TestWe crashes on launch after the identity and environment check, leaving candidates wondering whether a reboot would itself trigger a cheating flag.

Helpdesk failures

Repeatedly documented: candidates waiting 20–60 minutes on hold with the contractor's support line and being disconnected, screen-recording their unsuccessful calls on speakerphone to prove they had tried, or being told to file a request on a "Single Candidate Portal" while EPSO's own complaint policy points to a different webform. EPSO's complaint rules require candidates to have contacted the contractor's helpdesk during the test, but candidates whose helpdesk calls go unanswered have had their complaints dismissed on procedural grounds.

Environmental issues that look like cheating to a proctor

Anything that violates the Clean Desk Policy or the camera view rule can void a session. The most common avoidable problems: a second screen still plugged in even if unused; a phone visible on the desk or vibrating audibly during the test; a family member, flatmate or pet walking into shot; reading the questions aloud (a habit for some candidates); a window with a sun-glare moment that triggers the camera to lose face detection; an antivirus that re-enables itself mid-test and quarantines the testing app; a Windows or browser update that triggers during the session.

The screen-size disadvantage

EPSO has acknowledged in writing — and the Ombudsman has quoted — that "the test application and the test content is [sic] designed for larger screens, but some candidates may not have access to such screens and have laptop screens only", with the consequence that candidates relying only on a laptop screen "would have trouble reading the test material and, essentially, be at a disadvantage in taking the test." Since EPSO's own Clean Desk Policy forbids a second monitor, this design choice has direct equality-of-treatment implications.

EPSO's framing of the problem

Officials have publicly described complaint volumes as "not alarming" and within industry norms, and EPSO and its providers have repeatedly attributed individual failures to "non-compliant environments" — outdated hardware, insufficient RAM, corporate or VPN-bound machines. That framing matters, because it shifts the burden of proof to the candidate. The countervailing record — the Parliament resolution, the Ombudsman decisions, the union-documented testimonies — establishes that systemic failures are real, recurrent and not the fault of individual candidates.

False positives: when AI proctoring decides you cheated and you didn't

EPSO's Proctorio-on-TAO setup is part of a broader category of AI proctoring that has been studied and criticised heavily in academic settings. The same dynamics apply in EPSO.

How false positives happen

A proctoring system continuously scores video, audio and screen events for "suspicion." Triggers include: lost face detection (camera, lighting or glare), face-not-matching-ID (lighting, low-resolution camera, glasses, head covering), multiple-face detection (a poster, a reflection in a window, a flatmate walking past the door), gaze direction drifting off-screen for "too long" (which can be the candidate reading a long question), audio events (a neighbour, traffic, an air-conditioning unit, the candidate sub-vocalising while reading), the candidate's body moving out of frame (stretching, reaching for the allowed drink), keystroke or process anomalies (the operating system pushing a background update), and second-monitor or virtual-machine fingerprints.

Documented bias

Multiple studies and an Electronic Frontier Foundation review have found that AI proctoring tools generate disproportionate false-positive rates for candidates with darker skin tones (because the face-detection model degrades), for neurodivergent candidates (whose natural eye and body movement patterns trigger gaze and posture flags), for candidates wearing religious head coverings, and for candidates with disabilities (ADHD, tics, tremor, hearing loss requiring lip-reading of instructions). One academic review described high-sensitivity Proctorio runs as producing "a literal sea of red flags, which were of course false positives."

Why this is structurally dangerous

AI proctoring decisions are pre-decisional — they generate a suspicion score that is then reviewed by a human. The human review is typically fast, the standard of proof is internal and opaque, and the candidate often does not see the underlying video evidence or have a clear right of access to it. The same studies that report false positives consistently find that having a human re-check every AI alert before any consequence reduces wrongful sanctions sharply, but they also find that this safeguard is inconsistently applied across providers.

What this means for an EPSO candidate

First, prevent the false positive: a dedicated, locked room; a clean wall behind you with no posters, mirrors or windows in shot; daylight or two soft lamps in front of you, none behind you; a chair that lets you stay still; one screen, with the second physically unplugged; phone in another room, in another country if you can; antivirus turned off and confirmed off (Windows Defender will sometimes re-enable itself); all updates installed and rebooted before the session.

Second, create your own evidence trail: photograph your room before the test (including the desk, the door, the window, the camera position); start a stopwatch the moment the test begins; if anything goes wrong, immediately note the time, the error message verbatim, take a phone photo of the screen, screenshot if you can, and keep a written timeline. Evidence is what wins technical complaints; "I don't think it worked" does not.

The four appeal and complaint routes — formal map

EPSO outcomes are not appeals-proof. There are four routes, with very different scopes, deadlines and remedies. Candidates frequently lose rights by using the wrong route at the wrong time, so this section is worth reading carefully.

1. Technical complaint to EPSO during/right after the test (Complaint Resolution Policy for Testing Events)

Scope

Technical disruptions during the test (platform crash, lag, calculator obscuring text, timer absent, session ending prematurely, etc.) and item-specific complaints (a defective question after testing).

Deadline

The deadline is stated in the Notice of Competition and is usually very short — typically 5 to 10 calendar days. There is no general "30 days" — read the Notice.

Eligibility

You must have participated in the testing event. You must, per EPSO policy, have first tried to contact the test provider's helpdesk during the test and followed the platform's troubleshooting steps; this is the procedural rule on which many complaints fail. Keep evidence that you tried (call logs, screen recordings, screenshots).

How

Through the dedicated webform on EPSO's site (eu-careers.europa.eu/en/contact-us/complaints). EPSO's stated response time is 15 working days. Outcomes range from dismissal to neutralisation of one or more questions to a full retest invitation.

Force majeure variant

A separate "force majeure" track for events outside the candidate's control that prevented the test (power outage, internet outage on the building, hospitalisation, bereavement). Notify EPSO without delay between receipt of the invitation letter in your EPSO account and the complaint deadline, and provide documentary evidence (medical certificate, provider attestation of outage, etc.).

2. Request for review by the Selection Board

Scope

Any decision by the Selection Board or EPSO that establishes your result, your eligibility, or whether you proceed to the next stage. Grounds: a material irregularity in the competition process, or non-compliance with the Staff Regulations, the Notice of Competition, its annexes, or established case law.

Deadline

Within 5 working days of the negative decision being placed in your EPSO account.

Why this matters

Decisions made by a Selection Board cannot be set aside by the Director of EPSO under an Article 90(2) administrative complaint — only the Selection Board can revisit them. If you skip the review and go straight to an administrative complaint, you typically lose. This is one of the most common procedural traps.

Outcome

The Selection Board confirms, modifies, or annuls its decision and notifies you.

3. Administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations

Scope

Any "act adversely affecting" the candidate that does not consist of a Selection Board decision (for example, an EPSO administrative decision on eligibility, on a technical complaint outcome, on accommodations, on application processing).

Deadline

3 months from the date of notification of the contested decision, addressed to the Appointing Authority — for EPSO matters, the Director of EPSO.

Implied rejection

If the Appointing Authority does not reply within 4 months, the complaint is treated as impliedly rejected on the last day of that period. Silence is a rejection. The Court appeal deadline starts running from that date.

Relationship to review

EPSO's own FAQ confirms that you may lodge an Article 90(2) complaint before the review reply — but for Selection Board decisions, the complaint is futile and you should pursue review first.

4. Action before the General Court of the European Union under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations

Scope

Judicial review of a final adverse decision after the administrative route has been exhausted.

Pre-condition

An Article 90(2) complaint must have been expressly rejected or impliedly rejected by silence.

Deadline

3 months and 10 days (the additional 10 days are the standard distance allowance) from notification of the express rejection — or, for implied rejection, from the date the 4-month silence expired.

Forum

The General Court (Civil Service jurisdiction was reabsorbed into the General Court in 2016). Cases are listed under the "T-…" prefix on the CURIA database.

Recent case-law signal

The General Court annulled EPSO competition notices in T-555/22 (8 May 2024) and T-7/23 (9 October 2024) for requiring English as the mandatory second language without sufficient justification — discrimination on linguistic grounds. In T-216/23 (10 July 2024), however, it upheld a restriction to English and French in a specialist field (international cooperation and aid) where EPSO provided "concrete and verifiable evidence" — usage statistics, internal communications, job descriptions — that those languages dominated in the recipient departments. Together these cases set the current bar: language restrictions need evidence, not assertion.

5. Complaint to the European Ombudsman

Scope

Maladministration by an EU institution or body, including EPSO. Distinct from judicial appeal: the Ombudsman cannot annul a decision but can make findings and recommendations that often produce concrete relief (notably retests). The Ombudsman has been the single most influential external check on EPSO since 2022.

Deadline

Within 2 years of becoming aware of the facts. You must first have raised the issue with the institution.

Track record

The Ombudsman's decision of 22 January 2024 (case in the 177622 inquiry series) found that EPSO's remote testing rollout lacked adequate oversight, technical preparation and accountability, criticised inadequate information to candidates, mishandling of complaints, and technical difficulties, and urged EPSO to reconsider physical test centres. EPSO, following the decision, offered four complainants the opportunity to retake their tests and committed to making test-tool functionality reviewable retroactively and to giving candidates a copy of their answers with correct answers after testing. Subsequent Ombudsman decisions (180990, 189264) have continued to press EPSO to investigate complaints flexibly where candidates could not reach the helpdesk, and to redesign tests so that smaller laptop screens are not a structural disadvantage.

6. Petition to the European Parliament

Scope

Any EU citizen can petition the Parliament on a matter affecting them directly. The PETI committee then examines admissibility and may seek information from the Commission.

Track record

Petition No 0525/2025 raised "alleged organisational issues faced by candidates" and led to Parliament's resolution 2025/2880(RSP) condemning EPSO's "repeated technical, organisational and procedural shortcomings" and demanding flexible retest options and the reintroduction of physical test centres.

Practical "use the right tool" mapping

A short decision tree:

• If the platform failed during the test → call the helpdesk during the test, document, then file a technical complaint within the Notice deadline (usually ≤10 days).
• If a question was defective and you found out after the test → item-specific complaint within the Notice deadline.
• If the Selection Board scored, eliminated or excluded you → request for review within 5 working days, then if needed Article 90(2), then Court.
• If EPSO administration (not the Board) decided against you (eligibility, accommodations, complaint outcome) → Article 90(2) within 3 months, then Court.
• If the institution's wider conduct of the competition was poor — pattern, not single error → European Ombudsman within 2 years, and consider a petition to Parliament.

Doing two or more in parallel is permitted and often advisable: an Ombudsman complaint can be running while a Court action is filed.

The specific risks for vulnerable candidate groups

Disabled candidates and candidates with medical conditions

EPSO is bound by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and operates an Accessibility team that grants reasonable accommodations on a case-by-case basis: extended time, screen reader compatibility, separated test sessions, allowed breaks, alternative formats. Request these in the application form with supporting documentation (medical certificate dated within the year, expert assessment). The decision may differ from what is requested; if it does and you believe it is inadequate, that decision is itself an EPSO administrative decision and can be challenged under Article 90(2) and onward. Candidates with conditions that produce involuntary movement (tics, tremor), gaze patterns or sub-vocalisation should additionally flag this in advance with the Accessibility team so that proctoring teams have prior notice and will not treat the behaviour as suspicious.

Candidates testing from non-standard environments

Caregivers, candidates living in shared housing, candidates in countries with unreliable power or internet, and candidates whose only computer is corporate (and therefore administrator-locked) are structurally disadvantaged by the current setup. A corporate laptop where you cannot disable antivirus or install a browser extension is incompatible with TAO/Proctorio, period; document the inability to comply, request reasonable accommodation in advance, and where the only available alternative is a physical centre, ask whether one is available.

Candidates with darker skin tones

The bias literature on Proctorio and similar tools is well established. Mitigations: front-facing soft daylight or two front-facing lamps; a plain light background; a higher-resolution external webcam if your laptop's camera is mediocre; a slow, deliberate face-on look at the camera during identity check; if a proctor messages you to "move closer" or "improve lighting", do so calmly and document the request. If you later believe a false positive contributed to your outcome, flag the bias literature explicitly in your complaint — it makes the procedural argument concrete rather than abstract.

Non-native English candidates and minority language candidates

EPSO's recent rollout of testing in all 24 official languages and pre-publication of written test material in your mother tongue (where applicable) has narrowed the gap, but verbal reasoning items in particular still penalise candidates reading in a non-native language under time pressure. The current case-law trajectory (T-555/22, T-7/23) makes it harder for EPSO to impose English-only or English-French-only second-language requirements without specific justification, which is a structural improvement worth tracking.

A defensible test-day protocol

Treat the test day as a system, not a single event. Before, during, after.

Before

Run the test provider's prerequisite check the day it opens, not the day before the test. If it fails, escalate immediately. Reboot the night before the test, install all pending Windows or macOS updates, then reboot again. Disable antivirus and firewall and verify they did not re-enable themselves on next boot. Disconnect any second monitor physically (do not just disable it). Lock the room. Tell anyone else in the home that you cannot be disturbed. Charge the laptop and plug it in. Lay out: ID, drink without label, the allowed list of items and nothing else.

During

Read every screen. If anything is wrong — calculator covers question, timer missing, screen freezes — start a phone-camera video silently, mark the time, contact the helpdesk inside the test as instructed, and write down a single-line timeline as you go. Do not abandon the session unless you cannot proceed; abandoning before contacting the helpdesk is the single most common reason a technical complaint is dismissed. Stay in camera view. Do not read aloud. If the proctor pings you, follow the instruction; do not argue.

After

Within minutes, write a one-page contemporaneous note: what happened, when, what you did, what you saw on screen, what the helpdesk said or did not say. Save your call records and screen recording. If you intend to file, file before the deadline expires (it is usually short) — do not wait for results. The complaint is stronger when it is fresh and procedurally clean.

Where EPSO is heading

Three things are moving simultaneously. EPSO has switched primary supplier to OAT/TAO with Proctorio as proctoring layer and Prometric Ireland as secondary cascade. The European Parliament has demanded the reintroduction of physical test centres. The Ombudsman has demanded that test-tool functionality be reviewable retroactively, that candidates automatically receive their own answers and the correct answers post-test, and that test material work on standard laptop screens. The first sittings on the new TAO platform (notably AD7 Building Management, 27 January 2026) suggest the transition is not yet smooth; candidate-reported issues echo the previous generation's. A candidate preparing in 2026 should assume: that physical test centres may return for some sittings (track the Notice of Competition), that the platform will work but the helpdesk may not, and that the candidate's own evidence trail is the deciding factor in any later dispute.

Quick reference — deadlines and authorities

The single most expensive mistake candidates make is missing a deadline. The shortest of these is 5 working days for a Selection Board review. From shortest to longest:

Route	Deadline
Technical complaint or item-specific complaint after a testing event	Per the Notice of Competition, often within 5–10 calendar days, sometimes within hours for the in-test technical reporting requirement.
Selection Board review	5 working days from the negative decision in the EPSO account.
Force majeure notification	Without delay, no later than the Notice's complaint deadline.
Article 90(2) administrative complaint to the Appointing Authority	3 months from notification.
Implied rejection by silence on Article 90(2)	4 months without reply.
Action before the General Court (Article 270 TFEU / Article 91 SR)	3 months and 10 days from express or implied rejection.
European Ombudsman complaint	2 years from awareness of the facts, after raising with the institution.

The authorities, in plain language: the Selection Board controls grades, eligibility and progression; the Appointing Authority (Director of EPSO, in EPSO matters) controls administrative acts; the General Court judicially reviews everything once exhausted; the Ombudsman investigates maladministration and is the fastest, lightest, most effective external pressure point for systemic technical failures; the European Parliament, through PETI petitions, is the political channel.

Key takeaways

• Remote testing is now the default — prepare for a proctored online exam with strict equipment and environment requirements.
• Failures are real and documented: platform crashes, false positive AI flags, unresponsive helpdesks. You need evidence and a clear appeal path.
• Know your appeal deadlines: 5 working days for Selection Board review, 3 months for administrative complaint, 2 years for the Ombudsman.
• False positives in AI proctoring disproportionately affect candidates with darker skin, neurodivergent candidates, and those with disabilities. Prepare your environment carefully and document everything.
• Prevention is cheaper than cure: run the technical prerequisite check early, photograph your testing environment, create a timeline if anything goes wrong.

---

Sources and further reading

• Online Testing – What you must know (EPSO)
• EPSO Complaint Resolution Policy for Testing Events
• Ombudsman Decision 22 January 2024 on EPSO remote testing (case 177622)
• European Parliament Resolution 2025/2880(RSP) on EPSO organisational issues
• Union for Unity (U4U) — EPSO page
• EU Training — preparation platform
• EPSOprep — free EPSO resources